Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] shell32/tests: Add tests for FolderItems_Item and FolderItems_get_Count.

[Sebastian Lackner]

On 19.08.2016 11:43, Alex Henrie wrote:
> Cc: Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de>
>
> v8 initializes V_ERROR(&var), item, item2, and i correctly. It also adds
> checks that the test files were created and written successfully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24(a)gmail.com>
> ---
>  dlls/shell32/tests/Makefile.in     |   2 +-
>  dlls/shell32/tests/shelldispatch.c | 229 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

I think this patch is unfortunately still a bit too noisy to be applied
separately. If you want to keep the "bruteforce" tests I would suggest to
move the implementation into the first patch, or alternatively change the
FIXME to a TRACE. Besides that I am basically fine, although there are
probably some ways how to improve the code style a bit further.

Regards,
Sebastian

[PATCH v8 1/3] shell32/tests: Add tests for FolderItems_Item and FolderItems_get_Count.

[Alex Henrie]

2016-08-22 4:15 GMT-06:00 Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de>:
> I think this patch is unfortunately still a bit too noisy to be applied
> separately. If you want to keep the "bruteforce" tests I would suggest to
> move the implementation into the first patch, or alternatively change the
> FIXME to a TRACE. Besides that I am basically fine, although there are
> probably some ways how to improve the code style a bit further.

What if I comment out the "noisy" tests in the first patch and
uncomment them in the second?

-Alex

[PATCH v8 1/3] shell32/tests: Add tests for FolderItems_Item and FolderItems_get_Count.

[Sebastian Lackner]

On 22.08.2016 18:08, Alex Henrie wrote:
> 2016-08-22 4:15 GMT-06:00 Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de>:
> > I think this patch is unfortunately still a bit too noisy to be applied
> > separately. If you want to keep the "bruteforce" tests I would suggest to
> > move the implementation into the first patch, or alternatively change the
> > FIXME to a TRACE. Besides that I am basically fine, although there are
> > probably some ways how to improve the code style a bit further.
>
> What if I comment out the "noisy" tests in the first patch and
> uncomment them in the second?
>
> -Alex

What about aborting the loop after the first failure? This part can then
be removed in the follow up patch.